~

J(~,.

~~~I...
~,.

<>~

l\.epublic of tbe flbilippines

~upr.em.e

QCourt

;ff-manila
SECOND DIVISION
NEIL B. AGUILAR and RUBEN
CALIMBAS,
Petitioners,

- versus -

LIGHTBRINGERS CREDIT
COOPERATIVE,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 209605

Present:
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
VELASCO, JR.,*
DEL CASTILLO,
MENDOZA, and
LEONEN,JJ.

Promulgated:

JAN 1 2 lCTT5

\}. ()\)\~

(il)c&Q(J~~~~

(j

x--------------------------------------------x
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
This is a petition for review on certiorari filed by petitioners Neil B.
Aguilar (Aguilar) and Ruben Calimbas (Calimbas), seeking to reverse and
set aside the April 5, 2013 1 and October 9, 2013 2 Resolutions of the Court
of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 128914, which denied the petition for
review outright, assailing the January 2, 2013 Decision 3 of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 5, Dinalupihan, Bataan (RTC) and the May 9, 2012
Decision4 of the First Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Dinalupihan-Hermosa,
Bataan (MCTC).

Designated Acting member in lieu of Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion, per Special Order No. 1910,
dated January 12, 2015.
1
Penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez with Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and Associate
Justice Socorro B. Inting, concurring; rollo, pp. 135-136.
2
Id. at 137-138.
3
Penned by Executive Judge Jose Ener S. Fernando; id. at 51-55 and 57-61.
4
Penned by Presiding Judge Franco Paulo R. Arago; id. at 62-66 and 67-71.

DECISION

G.R. No. 209605

In the lower courts, one of the issues involved was the proper
application of the rules when a party does not appear in the scheduled pretrial conference despite due notice. In this petition, the dismissal by the CA
of the petition filed under Rule 42 for failure to attach the entire records has
also been put to question, aside from the veracity of indebtedness issue.
The Facts
This case stemmed from the three (3) complaints for sum of money
separately filed by respondent Lightbringers Credit Cooperative (respondent)
on July 14, 2008 against petitioners Aguilar and Calimbas, and one Perlita
Tantiangco (Tantiangco) which were consolidated before the First
Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Dinalupihan, Bataan (MCTC). The
complaints alleged that Tantiangco, Aguilar and Calimbas were members of
the cooperative who borrowed the following funds:
1. In Civil Case No. 1428, Tantiangco allegedly borrowed
206,315.71 as evidenced by Cash Disbursement Voucher No.
4010 but the net loan was only 45,862.00 as supported by
PNB Check No. 0000005133.5
2. In Civil Case No. 1429, petitioner Calimbas allegedly borrowed
202,800.18 as evidenced by Cash Disbursement Voucher No.
3962 but the net loan was only 60,024.00 as supported by
PNB Check No. 0000005088;6
3. In Civil Case No. 1430, petitioner Aguilar allegedly borrowed
126,849.00 as evidenced by Cash Disbursement Voucher No.
3902 but the net loan was only 76,152.00 as supported by PNB
Check No. 0000005026;7

Tantiangco, Aguilar and Calimbas filed their respective answers. They

uniformly claimed that the discrepancy between the principal amount of the
loan evidenced by the cash disbursement voucher and the net amount of loan
reflected in the PNB checks showed that they never borrowed the amounts
being collected. They also asserted that no interest could be claimed because
there was no written agreement as to its imposition.
On the scheduled pre-trial conference, only respondent and its counsel
appeared. The MCTC then issued the Order, 8 dated August 25, 2009,
allowing respondent to present evidence ex parte. Respondent later
presented Fernando Manalili (Manalili), its incumbent General Manager, as
5

Id. at 107.
Id. at 82.
7
Id. at 73.
8
Id. at 96-97.
6

DECISION

G.R. No. 209605

its sole witness. In his testimony, Manalili explained that the discrepancy
between the amounts of the loan reflected in the checks and those in the cash
disbursement vouchers were due to the accumulated interests from previous
outstanding obligations, withheld share capital, as well as the service and
miscellaneous fees. He stated, however, that it was their bookkeeper who
could best explain the details.
Aguilar and Calimbas insisted that they should have the right to crossexamine the witness of respondent, notwithstanding the fact that these cases
were being heard ex parte. In the interest of justice, the MCTC directed the
counsels of the parties to submit their respective position papers on the issue
of whether or not a party who had been declared as in default might still
participate in the trial of the case. Only respondent, however, complied with
the directive. In its Order,9 dated April 27, 2011, the MCTC held that since
the proceedings were being heard ex parte, the petitioners who had been
declared as in default had no right to participate therein and to crossexamine the witnesses. Thereafter, respondent filed its formal offer of
evidence.10
MCTC Ruling
On May 9, 2012, the MCTC resolved the consolidated cases in three
separate decisions. In Civil Case No. 1428, 11 the MCTC dismissed the
complaint against Tantiangco because there was no showing that she
received the amount being claimed. Moreover, the PNB check was made
payable to cash and was encashed by a certain Violeta Aguilar. There was,
however, no evidence that she gave the proceeds to Tantiangco. Further, the
dates indicated in the cash disbursement voucher and the PNB check varied
from each other and suggested that the voucher could refer to a different
loan.
The decisions in Civil Case No. 142912 and 1430,13 however, found
both Calimbas and Aguilar liable to respondent for their respective debts.
The PNB checks issued to the petitioners proved the existence of the loan
transactions. Their receipts of the loan were proven by their signatures
appearing on the dorsal portions of the checks as well as on the cash
disbursement vouchers. As a matter of practice, banks would allow the
encashment of checks only by the named payee and subject to the
presentation of proper identification. Nonetheless, the MCTC ruled that only
the amount shown in the PNB check must be awarded because respondent
9

Id. at 102-103.
Id. at 104-106.
11
Id. at 107-111.
12
Id. at 62-66.
13
Id. at 67-71.
10

DECISION

G.R. No. 209605

failed to present its bookkeeper to justify the higher amounts being claimed.
The court also awarded attorneys fees in favor of respondent. The
dispositive portion of the decision in Civil Case No. 1429 reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered in plaintiffs favor and against the defendant, ordering the
latter to pay plaintiff the amount of 60,024.00 with interest at the
rate of 12% per annum from April 4, 2007 until fully paid, plus
15,000.00 as attorneys fees.
Costs against the defendant.
SO ORDERED.14

And in Civil Case No. 1430, the dispositive portion states:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered in plaintiffs favor and against the defendant, ordering the
latter to pay the plaintiff the amount of 76,152.00 with interest at
the rate of 12% per annum from February 28, 2007 until fully paid.
Defendant is further directed to pay attorneys fees
equivalent to 25% of the adjudged amount.
Costs against the defendant.
SO ORDERED.15

On July 12, 2012, a notice of appeal16 was filed by the petitioners, and
on August 15, 2012, they filed their joint memorandum for appeal17 before
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Bataan (RTC). Aguilar and Calimbas
argued out that had they been allowed to present evidence, they would have
established that the loan documents were bogus. Respondent produced
documents to appear that it had new borrowers but did not lend any amount
to them. Attached to the joint memorandum were photocopies of the dorsal
portions of the PNB checks which showed that these checks were to be
deposited back to respondents bank account.
RTC Ruling
On January 2, 2013, the RTC rendered separate decisions in Civil
Case No. DH-1300-1218 and Civil Case No. DH-1299-1219 which affirmed
the MCTC decisions. It held that the PNB checks were concrete evidence of
the indebtedness of the petitioners to respondent. The RTC relied on the
14

Id. at 66.
Id. at 71.
16
Id. at 112.
17
Id. at 114-132.
18
Id. at 51-55.
19
Id. at 57-61.
15

DECISION

G.R. No. 209605

findings of the MCTC that the checks bore no endorsement to another

person or entity. The checks were issued in the name of the petitioners and,
thus, they had the right to encash the same and appropriate the proceeds. The
decretal portions of the RTC decision in both cases similarly read:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is hereby
DENIED. The Decision dated May 9, 2012 of the First Municipal
Circuit Trial Court (1st MCTC), Dinalupihan-Hermosa, Bataan is
hereby affirmed in toto.
SO ORDERED.

On January 18, 2013, the petitioners filed their joint motion for
reconsideration/new trial20 before the RTC. Aguilar and Calimbas reiterated
their position that they did not receive the proceeds of the checks. As an
alternative prayer, petitioners moved that the RTC remand the case to the
MCTC for a new trial on account of the Sinumpaang Salaysay of Arcenit
Dela Torre, the bookkeeper of respondent.
On February 11, 2013, the RTC issued separate orders21 denying the
motion of the petitioners. It explained that all the issues were already passed
upon and the supposed newly discovered evidence was already available
during appeal, but the petitioners failed to present the same in time.
CA Ruling
Aggrieved, Aguilar and Calimbas filed a petition for review22 before
the CA on March 11, 2013. It was dismissed, however, in the questioned
resolution, 23 dated April 5, 2013, stating that the petition was formally
defective because the verification and disclaimer of forum shopping and
the affidavit of service had a defective jurat for failure of the notary public
to indicate his notarial commission number and office address. Moreover,
the entire records of the case, inclusive of the oral and documents evidence,
were not attached to the petition in contravention of Section 2, Rule 42 of
the Rules of Court.
A motion for reconsideration 24 was filed by the petitioners which
sought the leniency of the CA. They attached a corrected verification and
disclaimer of forum shopping and affidavit of service. They asked the CA to
simply order the RTC to elevate the records of the case pursuant to Section 7,
20

Id. at 124-132.
Id. at 50 and 56.
22
Id. at 27-49.
23
Id. at 135-136.
24
Id. at 139-145.
21

DECISION

G.R. No. 209605

Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. Moreover, the petitioners could not attach the
records of the case because the flooding caused by Habagat in August
2012 soaked the said records in water.
In the other questioned resolution, dated October 9, 2013, the CA
denied the motion because the petitioners still failed to attach the entire
records of the case which was a mandatory requirement under Section 2,
Rule 42.
Hence, this petition.
SOLE ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION WHEN IT DISMISSED THE PETITION FOR
REVIEW FILED BEFORE IT BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER
RULE 42 OF THE RULES OF COURT CITING THAT THE SAID
PETITION IS FORMALLY DEFECTIVE FOR FAILURE OF THE
PETITIONERS TO SUBMIT WITH THE SAID PETITION THE
ENTIRE RECORDS OF THE APPEALED CIVIL CASE NOS. DH1300-12 AND DH-1299-12.25

The petitioners argue that contrary to the findings of the CA, they
substantially complied with the required form and contents of a petition for
review under Section 2, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. There is nothing in
the provision which requires that the entire records of the appealed case
should be endorsed to the CA. Such requirement would definitely be
cumbersome to poor litigants like them.
They assert that they submitted the following pleadings and material
portions of the court records in their petition for review: (1) certified copies
of the decisions, orders or resolutions of the RTC and the MCTC; (2)
complaints against the petitioners attached with documents used by
respondent in its formal offer of evidence; (3) answer of the petitioners;
(4) order of the MCTC declaring the petitioners in default; (5) respondents
formal offer of evidence; (6) notice of appeal; (7) joint memorandum of
appeal; and (8) joint motion for reconsideration/new trial. According to the
petitioners, these pleadings and records were sufficient to support their
petition for review.

25

Id. at 14.

DECISION

G.R. No. 209605

Assuming that there was a reason to dismiss the petition on account of

technicalities, the petitioners argue that the CA should not have strictly
applied the rules of procedure and provided leniency to the petitioners. They
also ask the Court to give a glance on the merits of their case brought before
the CA.
On February 7, 2014, respondent filed its comment26 contending that
the petitioners had no excuse in their non-compliance with Section 2, Rule
42. They claim that the court records were not attached because these were
soaked in flood water in August 2012, but the RTC rendered its decision in
January 2013. The petitioners failed to secure a certification from the RTC
that these records were indeed unavailable.
On May 21, 2014, the petitioners filed their reply before this Court,27
adding that the elevation of the entire records of the case was not a
mandatory requirement, and the CA could exercise its discretion that it
furnished with the entire records of the case by invoking Section 7, Rule 42
of the Rules of Court.
The Courts Ruling
First Procedural Issue
On the sole assignment of error, the Court agrees with the petitioners
that Section 2, Rule 42 does not require that the entire records of the case be
attached to the petition for review. The provision states:
Sec. 2. Form and contents. - The petition shall be filed in seven (7)
legible copies, with the original copy intended for the court being
indicated as such by the petitioner, and shall (a) state the full names
of the parties to the case, without impleading the lower courts or
judges thereof either as petitioners or respondents; (b) indicate the
specific material dates showing that it was filed on time; (c) set
forth concisely a statement of the matters involved, the issues raised,
the specification of errors of fact or law, or both, allegedly
committed by the Regional Trial Court, and the reasons or
arguments relied upon for the allowance of the appeal; (d) be
accompanied by clearly legible duplicate originals or true copies of the
judgments or final orders of both lower courts, certified correct by the
clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court, the requisite number of
plain copies thereof and of the pleadings and other material portions
of the record as would support the allegations of the petition.
[Emphasis and underscoring supplied]

26
27

Id. at 160-171.
Id. at 178-188.

DECISION

G.R. No. 209605

The abovequoted provision enumerates the required documents that

must be attached to a petition for review, to wit: (1) clearly legible duplicate
originals or true copies of the judgments or final orders of both lower courts,
certified correct by the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court; (2) the
requisite number of plain copies thereof; and (3) of the pleadings and other
material portions of the record as would support the allegations of the
petition. Clearly, the Rules do not require that the entire records of the case
be attached to the petition for review. Only when these specified documents
are not attached in the petition will it suffer infirmities under Section 3, Rule
42, which states:
Sec. 3. Effect of failure to comply with requirements. - The failure of
the petitioner to comply with any of the foregoing requirements
regarding the payment of the docket and other lawful fees, the
deposit for costs, proof of service of the petition, and the contents of
and the documents which should accompany the petition shall be
sufficient ground for the dismissal thereof.

In Canton v. City of Cebu,28 the Court discussed the importance of

attaching the pleadings or material portions of the records to the petition for
review. [P]etitioners discretion in choosing the documents to be attached
to the petition is however not unbridled. The CA has the duty to check the
exercise of this discretion, to see to it that the submission of supporting
documents is not merely perfunctory. The practical aspect of this duty is to
enable the CA to determine at the earliest possible time the existence of
prima facie merit in the petition. 29 In that case, the petition was denied
because the petitioner failed to attach the complaint, answer and appeal
memorandum to support their allegation.
In Cusi-Hernandez v. Diaz,30 a case where the petitioner did not attach
to her petition for review a copy of the contract to sell that was at the center
of controversy, the Court nonetheless found that there was a substantial
compliance with the rule, considering that the petitioner had appended to the
petition for review a certified copy of the decision of the MTC that
contained a verbatim reproduction of the omitted contract.
Recently, in Galvez, v. CA, 31 it was held that attaching the other
records of the MTC and the RTC were not necessary based on the
circumstances of the case. The petitioner therein was not assailing the
propriety of the findings of fact by the MTC and the RTC, but only the
conclusions reached by the said lower courts after their appreciation of the
28

544 Phil. 369 (2007).

Id. at 377.
30
390 Phil. 1245, 1252 (2000).
31
G.R. No. 157445, April 3, 2013, 695 SCRA 10, 24.
29

DECISION

G.R. No. 209605

facts. In dealing with the questions of law, the CA could simply refer to the
attached decisions of the MTC and the RTC.
Thus, the question in the case at bench is whether or not the
petitioners attached the sufficient pleadings and material portions of the
records in their petition for review. The Court rules that the petition was in
substantial compliance with the requirements.
The assignment of error 32 in the petition for review clearly raises
questions of fact as the petitioners assail the appreciation of evidence by the
MCTC and the RTC. Thus, aside from the decisions and orders of the
MCTC and the RTC, the petitioners should attach pertinent portions of the
records such as the testimony of the sole witness of respondent, the copies of
the cash disbursement vouchers and the PNB checks presented by
respondent in the MCTC. In the petition for review, the petitioners attached
respondents complaints before the MCTC which contained the photocopies
of the cash disbursement vouchers and PNB checks. These should be
considered as ample compliance with Section 2, Rule 42 of the Rules of
Court.
Second Procedural Issue
Nevertheless, instead of remanding the case to the CA, this Court
deems it fit to rule on the merits of the case to once and for all settle the
dispute of the parties.
The rule is that a court can only consider the evidence presented by
respondent in the MCTC because the petitioners failed to attend the pre-trial
conference on August 25, 2009 pursuant to Section 5, Rule 18 of the Rules
of Court.33 The Court, however, clarifies that failure to attend the pre-trial
does not result in the default of the defendant. Instead, the failure of the
defendant to attend shall be cause to allow the plaintiff to present his
evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment on the basis thereof.
The case of Philippine American Life & General Insurance Company
v. Joseph Enario 34 discussed the difference between non-appearance of a
defendant in a pre-trial conference and the declaration of a defendant in
default in the present Rules of Civil Procedure. The decision states:
32

Rollo, pp. 36-37.

Sec. 5. Effect of failure to appear. - The failure of the plaintiff to appear when so required pursuant to the
next preceding section shall be cause for dismissal of the action. The dismissal shall be with prejudice,
unless otherwise ordered by the court. A similar failure on the part of the defendant shall be cause to allow
the plaintiff to present his evidence ex parte and the court to render judgment on the basis thereof.
34
645 Phil. 166, 174-175 (2010).
33

DECISION

10

G.R. No. 209605

Prior to the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, the

phrase "as in default" was initially included in Rule 20 of the old
rules, and which read as follows:
Sec. 2. A party who fails to appear at a pre-trial conference
may be non-suited or considered as in default.
It was however amended in the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil
Procedure. Justice Regalado, in his book REMEDIAL LAW
COMPENDIUM, explained the rationale for the deletion of the
phrase "as in default" in the amended provision, to wit:
1. This is a substantial reproduction of Section 2 of the
former Rule 20 with the change that, instead of defendant
being declared "as in default" by reason of his nonappearance, this section now spells out that the procedure
will be to allow the ex parte presentation of plaintiffs
evidence and the rendition of judgment on the basis thereof.
While actually the procedure remains the same, the purpose
is one of semantical propriety or terminological accuracy as
there were criticisms on the use of the word "default" in the
former provision since that term is identified with the failure
to file a required answer, not appearance in court.

If the absent party is the plaintiff, then his case shall be dismissed. If it
is the defendant who fails to appear, then the plaintiff is allowed to present
his evidence ex parte and the court shall render judgment on the basis
thereof. Thus, the plaintiff is given the privilege to present his evidence
without objection from the defendant, the likelihood being that the court will
decide in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant having forfeited the
opportunity to rebut or present his own evidence.35
The pre-trial cannot be taken for granted. It is not a mere technicality
in court proceedings for it serves a vital objective: the simplification,
abbreviation and expedition of the trial, if not indeed its dispensation. 36
More significantly, the pre-trial has been institutionalized as the answer to
the clarion call for the speedy disposition of cases. Hailed as the most
important procedural innovation in Anglo-Saxon justice in the nineteenth
century, it paved the way for a less cluttered trial and resolution of the case.
It is, thus, mandatory for the trial court to conduct pre-trial in civil cases in
order to realize the paramount objective of simplifying, abbreviating and
expediting trial.37

35

Tolentino v. Laurel, G.R. No. 181368, February 22, 2012, 666 SCRA 561, 569-570.
United Coconut Planters Bank v. Magpayo, 473 Phil. 739, 746 (2004).
37
Paraaque Kings Enterprise, Inc. v. Santos, G.R. No. 194638, July 2, 2014.
36

DECISION

11

G.R. No. 209605

In the case at bench, the petitioners failed to attend the pre-trial

conference set on August 25, 2009. They did not even give any excuse for
their non-appearance, manifestly ignoring the importance of the pre-trial
stage. Thus, the MCTC properly issued the August 25, 2009 Order, 38
allowing respondent to present evidence ex parte.
The MCTC even showed leniency when it directed the counsels of the
parties to submit their respective position papers on whether or not Aguilar
and Calimbas could still participate in the trial of the case despite their
absence in the pre-trial conference. This gave Aguilar and Calimbas a
second chance to explain their non-attendance and, yet, only respondent
complied with the directive to file a position paper. The MCTC, in its
Order,39 dated April 27, 2011, properly held that since the proceedings were
being heard ex parte, Aguilar and Calimbas had no right to participate
therein and to cross-examine the witness.
Thus, as it stands, the Court can only consider the evidence on record
offered by respondent. The petitioners lost their right to present their
evidence during the trial and, a fortiori, on appeal due to their disregard of
the mandatory attendance in the pre-trial conference.
Substantive Issue
And on the merits of the case, the Court holds that there was indeed a
contract of loan between the petitioners and respondent. The Court agrees
with the findings of fact of the MCTC and the RTC that a check was a
sufficient evidence of a loan transaction. The findings of fact of the trial
court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and its assessment of
the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions anchored on the
findings are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect.40
The case of Pua v. Spouses Lo Bun Tiong41 discussed the weight of a
check as an evidence of a loan:
In Pacheco v. Court of Appeals, this Court has expressly
recognized that a check constitutes an evidence of indebtedness and
is a veritable proof of an obligation. Hence, it can be used in lieu of
and for the same purpose as a promissory note. In fact, in the
seminal case of Lozano v. Martinez, We pointed out that a check
functions more than a promissory note since it not only contains an
undertaking to pay an amount of money but is an "order addressed
to a bank and partakes of a representation that the drawer has
38

Id. at 96-97.
Id. at 102-103.
40
People v. Warriner, G.R. No. 208678, June 16, 2014.
41
G.R. No. 198660, October 23, 2013, 708 SCRA 571.
39

DECISION

12

G.R. No. 209605

funds on deposit against which the check is drawn, sufficient to

ensure payment upon its presentation to the bank." This Court
reiterated this rule in the relatively recent Lim v. Mindanao Wines
and Liquour Galleria stating that a check, the entries of which are
in writing, could prove a loan transaction. 42

There is no dispute that the signatures of the petitioners were present

on both the PNB checks and the cash disbursement vouchers. The checks
were also made payable to the order of the petitioners. Hence, respondent
can properly demand that they pay the amounts borrowed. If the petitioners
believe that there is some other bogus scheme afoot, then they must institute
a separate action against the responsible personalities. Otherwise, the Court
can only rule on the evidence on record in the case at bench, applying the
appropriate laws and jurisprudence.
As to the award of attorney's fees, the Court is of the view that the
same must be removed. Attorney's fees are in the concept of actual or
compensatory damages allowed under the circumstances provided for in
Article 2208 of the Civil Code, and absent any evidence supporting its grant,
the same must be deleted for lack of factual basis. 43 In this case, the MCTC
merely stated that respondent was constrained to file the present suit on
account of the petitioners' obstinate failure to settle their obligation. Without
any other basis on record to support the award, such cannot be upheld in
favor of respondent. The settled rule is that no premium should be placed on
the right to litigate and that not every winning party is entitled to an
automatic grant of attorney's fees. 44
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED.
In accord with the discourse on the substantive issue, the January 2,
2013 decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Dinalupihan, Bataan, is
AFFIRMED. The award of attorney's fees is, however, DELETED.
SO ORDERED.

JOSE CA

~NDOZA

Ass~~~:~%e

42

Id. at 584.
People v. Likiran, G.R. No. 201858, June 4, 2014.
44
First Lepanto-Taisho Insurance Corporation v. Chevron Philippines, Inc., G.R. No. 177839, January 18,
2012, 663 SCRA 309, 325.
43

13

DECISION

G.R. No. 209605

WE CONCUR:

~!
Associate Justice
Chairperson

~~;;
PRESBITERO )l. VELASCO, JR.
Assot'iate Justice

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO

Associate Justice

'
/

MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.

Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division

\./'

DECISION

14

G.R. No. 209605

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the
Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO

Chief Justice